G.R. No. 148508 . May 20, 2004
R TRANSPORT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. ROGELIO EJANDRA, respondent.

FACTS

Private respondent Rogelio Ejandra worked as a bus driver for petitioner R Transport Corporation from July 15, 1990 to January 31, 1996, plying a specific route and being paid 10% of his daily earnings. On January 31, 1996, an LTO officer apprehended him for obstruction of traffic and confiscated his driver’s license. He reported this to his manager, Oscar Pasquin, who gave him ₱500 to redeem the license. Ejandra retrieved his license after a week. On February 8, 1996, he informed Pasquin he was ready to work but was told the company was still studying whether to allow him to drive again. He was also accused of causing damage to the bus, which he denied, blaming the driver who used it during his absence. Pasquin told him, “Magpahinga ka muna at tatawagin ka na lang namin kung kailangan ka na para magmaneho. Magbakasyon ka muna, bata.” When asked how long, no definite time was given. Ejandra filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Petitioner denied the allegations, claiming Ejandra was a habitual absentee who abandoned his job, and that no employer-employee relationship existed as their agreement was a contract of lease, with Ejandra paid on commission.
The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition, upholding the factual findings of the labor tribunals.

ISSUE

1. Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and private respondent.
2. Whether private respondent was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed decisions.
1. On the existence of an employer-employee relationship: Yes. Petitioner is estopped from denying the existence of such a relationship. In its petition before the Supreme Court, petitioner invoked rulings on an employer’s right to dismiss for just cause, thereby admitting the relationship. A party cannot take inconsistent positions. Furthermore, payment on a commission basis does not negate employment. The factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals—that Ejandra worked as a driver for petitioner under its control and supervision—are conclusive and binding as they are supported by substantial evidence.
2. On the legality of the dismissal: The dismissal was illegal. Petitioner failed to prove abandonment. Ejandra’s one-week absence was due to the legitimate reason of retrieving his confiscated license, which was not his fault. His immediate report to the manager and prompt return to work negated any intention to abandon. Petitioner also failed to comply with procedural due process; Ejandra was not given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Assuming abandonment occurred, petitioner did not fulfill its duty under the Labor Code to report the dismissal to the DOLE.
The Court emphasized that factual findings of labor tribunals, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive. Petitioner’s arguments raised factual issues not reviewable in a petition for review under Rule 45.